Instigator / Pro
0
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic
#3669
Universals and particulars: The problem of universals
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
what is a universal and a particular? The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes: Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as colour and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?
-
Universals can be said to be a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called “particulars”), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. Individuals are said to be similar in virtue of sharing universals. An apple and a ruby are both red, for example, and their common redness results from sharing a universal. If they are both red at the same time, the universal, red, must be in two places at once. This makes universals quite different from individuals; and it makes them controversial.
-
Individuals are singular objects. They can exist over time, but in only one place at a time. Individuals also have properties (also called qualities), at least most of which can vary over time. Universals are the characteristics or qualities that ordinary objects or things have in common. If all cup holders are circular in some way, circularity may be considered a universal property of cup holders. Further, if two daughters can be considered female offspring of Frank, the qualities of being female, offspring, and of Frank, are universal properties of the two daughters. Many properties can be universal: being human, red, male or female, liquid or solid, big or small, etc.
The Problem of Universals asks three questions. Do universals exist? If they exist, where do they exist? Also, if they exist, how do we obtain knowledge of them?
Pro: I will argue the stance of universal realism, that they exist.
Con: Universals do not exist, or are simply illusions. That means you have a choice between arguing for nominalism, conceptualism, or transcendental idealism.
Rules:
1. I just hope to have a sincere discussion with someone who does not wish to debate primarily to improve their Elo and reinforce their Ego identity, but to truly come into the discussion with the thirst to learn something new with good intentions for personal development. Just don't be a sophist.
Best of luck!
Round 1
Pro
#1
Mary's room
In the famous Mary's Room thought experiment - Frank Jackson asks us to imagine a scholar who has spent their whole lives studying everything there is to know about redness but has been locked in a black and white room. If she walked outside and saw something red - would she learn something new about redness? -A common mistake in responses to this thought experiment is the confusing of propositional and experiential categories. Mary has a thorough knowledge of all the facts associated with the category of redness (a priori). She understands what conditions are necessary for an experience of redness to come about: functional human eyesight which has the capability of seeing red - certain wavelengths bouncing off objects under specific light conditions and so on. . . She knows examples of many things said to be red. All these facts and things claimed to belong to the category of red however are not obviously the experience of seeing red. This means that an experiential category of redness cannot be readily identifies as the same as a propositional category of redness. Thus redness does not just refer only to a visual category of experience (oh look there is another red thing! ) but to a whole cluster of things knowable without this visual experience - even if the visual colour redness being seen is what primarily drives facts about redness being produced. )
-
The concept of 'redness' then can be used to categorise all particulars recognized as being red as belonging to the same category both experientially and propositionally. Whenever I see a red apple I experimentally identify that apple as belonging to an experiential category of redness. Whenever I hear a fact about redness - I can also identify that fact as belonging to the propositional category of redness. It's not that this redness is a abstract entity. It is merely a category learnt and commonly used to distinguish a red thing as red whenever recognized as such. Whenever someone tells me "there are red frogs" I am able to imagine the frog red regardless of whether I've seen it because I've learnt what the category of redness is and can use it in my cognitions.
-
This is relevant, to show that there is 1. a divide between forms of experiential knowledge. 2. Shows that not all universals are entities in of themselves. con can contest my definition of what a universal is mainly on the grounds that it presupposes their existence as 'entities' with independent existence to that which is recognized as belonging to them. The category of redness is definitely distinct to the colour of greenness and helps us communicate this distinction to one another when verbalized "oh! I only like the green jelly babies not the red ones".
-
Therefore i will have to completely drop any argument to any universals which cannot be proven to be entities in of themselves. That means i have to give up on arguing for colour being a universal. Instead i will be arguing that things such as "female" and "male" and things of a geometric nature are universals, as two things as one existing in two separate places.
Argument against nominalism
Nominalists will argue that the problem of universals is simply a semantics issue. Both an apple and a tennis ball possess the universal quality of greenness and "roundness" both a green tennis ball and a red tennis ball both possess the universal quality of "tennisballness" a nominalist would argue, that because we can destroy a particular, e.g.. throw a vase onto the floor and it smashes, that means particulars are real. Yet when i drop a green vase on the floor and it smashes the smashed vase doesn't lose any of its "greenness". Therefore nominalists argue that the problem of universals is either
- a semantics issue
- a illusion created by the mind
Nominalists may be able to come up with good arguments against universals such as colour, yet when it comes to shape. It would appear like their position falls apart. For they can argue that colour is an illusion of the mind, but to argue geometry is an illusion of the mind is to reject both a posteriori experience and a priori knowledge.
Argument through mereological division
If we take a piece of bread, and we cut and cut. At a certain point we will cut it to the point where we can no longer see the bread nor its crumbs physically. This thought experiment is how ancient atomic philosophers came to the conclusion of particle physics. Just as oil and water do not mix, there must be one subsequent, constituent element underlying all of reality which fashions it all together into one.
(1) Everything that exists must exist within something else or within itself. (2) If the universe is all there is, It follows that the universe is a being upon whom all attributes are predicated; as a result, All other things cannot exist or be understood apart from or outside of it. (3) Third, the universe is an immanent rather than a transient cause, Because everything it produces is within himself and not outside of him.
This line of logic is supported by the big bang theory, the universe did not expand outwards But into itself (space and universe) expanded itself within itself. similar to when we blow up a balloon the inside grow within itself.
This then follows that all is necessarily one (if my reasoning thus far is correct) that would then, if we look to the expansion of where things are, we recognise there is no centre to any geometry within the universe once we get to the fundamental axiom. To have a centre implies an edge. Yet if there is no centre there can be no edge and vice versa. The universe has no centre, therefore no edge, it can then be said that the universe and all within it, is itself. Nothing is separated or not apart from it outside of ego illusion.
This argument then proves that if all is one, universals can exist and be everywhere at once (geometry) is separate spaces at the same time, yet these expanses of body and matter are not actually in separate spaces at one time at all, as all is actually one and indivisible.
All of this then means universals do not necessarily exist as a semantics or illusion issue, it is the opposite. Most things being viewed as particulars and separate is the illusion.
Argument from the universal existence of consciousness
Nominalists can argue to universals such as "humanity" being simply semantics with no objective basis in reality. I would have to agree. Yet the universal they necessarily cannot reject is consciousness itself.
Consciousness is a universal as it exists in more places than one, I am not the only person with consciousness, just as i am not the only person with "humanity" or "humanness" just as humanness cannot be mereologically divided like a particular such as an arm can. Consciousness cannot be dissected or cut up like the brain can. Considering that consciousness cannot be divided that means consciousness is then a universal. This is another heavy hitting argument to all being one. A form of panpsychism.
Humanity being denied as a necessary universal can be done based on the fact we can deny that we necessarily have to recognise humanity as a thing based on reality. This is impossible with consciousness itself as it is the entire reason we can experience some form of reality. This then proves some forms of universals are necessarily real.
Conclusion
- Consciousness itself is proof that universals exist, due to its indissectability
- physics is proof that universals exist through the big bang theory and the lack of centre to the cosmos
Con
#2
CONTENTS: Vague definitions, Particulars, A word about Pro.
NOTE: I am not going to give out sources of my statements, you cannot understand all these things by just reading a simple piece of information but I think most people reading this will know so they won't need sources.
VAGUE DEFINITIONS:
To accept that universals are real, we first have to establish a proper definition of universal. Now I am not going at the general idea of universals, I am gonna start from defining an example of universal. Let's say red. Now red is something that most people would define as the color which is perceived by their eye. Now, human eye perceives wavelengths from 620nm to 750nm as red( I am talking about the red light ), so in reality human eye would perceive two light waves of different wavelength as red because our eyes can't differ between those wavelengths. So, if those two same red lights are posed to a more accurate measurer then the definition of red becomes skim and more accurate. To make this more understandable, let's say there is a person color blind to red and green, now according to that person red and green become of same universal when for us they clearly are not. So, in order to judge a universal we can not rely on someone's perspective, since our perspective is not ABSOLUTE measurer. So, we need to take some other definition of a particular universal we are talking about. So, we may take wavelength as a measurer for our universal 'red'. Now that completely breaks universals, since two coherent sources can not exist, that means if there are two red lights from different sources like, one from bulb 1 and bulb 2. Their frequency can never be same. Then it leaves us nothing to compare since the property we are comparing is not same. That is same as comparing red to green. This also nullifies argument of shape as well. So in order for a thing to have square shape it must have equal sides but as we know no two lengths in universe can be same since we don't have an ABSOLUTE measurer to measure lengths to the last decimal point( like, 9.000000 and so on up to infinite). So we rely on vague definition, such as saying a figure of lengths 19.1cm and 19.2cm as same for human convenience. Now, we can not prove universals from vague definitions because then everyone can make up their own vague definitions. The lack of TRUE definition is what makes the existence of universals unknown. And we know for a fact, that TRUE definition does not exist and so universals also don't. The point is, you are referring to the redness of an apple when you don't even know what 'redness' is.
PARTICULARS:
Now I have tried to prove existence of universals from the argument of vague definitions. To get more from that, let's say a man tries to define a universal called x. Now what the man does is, he writes 19 properties of the universal he is talking about, then he tries to find another things that possess this universal. Now he has to match all the 19 properties he has learnt to find out weather these two things belong to same universal. Now here comes the argument, the man does not possess all the knowledge of the universe so how is he so sure that there are only these 19 properties that define this universal? No one can possess all the knowledge of this universe, so it is safe to assume we can not know all the properties of a universal. Now since we do not know all the properties a thing can possess, we have no choice but to assume that universals do not exist, so we take the the alternative known as particulars.
A WORD ABOUT PRO:
Pro's arguments are undefined. His arguments lack base, he tries to prove universal's existence by taking examples out of universals, he first argues on basis of color and then consciousness. His arguments have one point and he repeats it and makes it longer by taking examples that represent same thing. This statement clearly tells us about his one sided mind and his desperation to prove himself right even though he mentioned earlier that he doesn't want to debate. His arguments lacks any proper science and facts behind them. The experiment he first mentioned is completely void of basis for a proper proof of universals. Even though he mentioned that he just wants to talk and not debate, he doesn't give any support for the argument that universals don't exist. It seems to me like he just choose this topic solely because he thought he would definitely win in this debate. Solely for the purpose of getting his win rate high. He executed his cards very poorly. His arguments could have had some weight if only he properly researched and used his cards properly, not just throw them out randomly.
Round 2
Pro
#3
vague definitions:
Within my first round argument, I actually made an argument against using colors as a universal due to the fact I could get caught in the idea of it being an illusion of the mind or "not an entity of its own". Which leads me to believe you have actually just skim read my argument and come to the conclusion that I have just rehashed the same argument for colour but now for consciousness (which is not true).
Particulars
the man does not possess all the knowledge of the universe so how is he so sure that there are only these 19 properties that define this universal? No one can possess all the knowledge of this universe, so it is safe to assume we can not know all the properties of a universal.
I don't believe you need to know what Kylie Jenner is doing at this moment to know if all balls possess roundness. Your argument against "roundness" or geometrical arguments being universal due to the fact that complete symmetry doesn't seem to be observable in the real world, although good, is only a matter of time before humans can create a sphere with perfect symmetry, as we have created an object known as GP-B, which is two spherical balls that are 40 atoms from perfect roundness. These two balls are the exact same roundness and made of the exact same material. We are also capable of creating perfectly symmetrical images on a computer. What you may not realise is that a computer, just like we are, and spheres, is also made of atoms. This then shows that the atoms within the computer can attain perfect symmetry. There's little reason to believe we won't attain this with real-world objects soon either.
a word about pro
Pro's arguments are undefined. His arguments lack base, he tries to prove universal's existence by taking examples out of universals, he first argues on basis of color and then consciousness. His arguments have one point and he repeats it and makes it longer by taking examples that represent same thing.
If you go back and read, you will notice I didn't make an argument for colors being a real universal at all. In fact, your entire argument has been a strawman arguing against something I never argued for. If you want to actually refute my claim, you ought to actually argue against my claim, which was a claim to consciousness itself being universal (which you haven't commented on at all in "your rebuttal").
His arguments lacks any proper science and facts behind them.
You are aware that you agreed to debate philosophy, no? Or did you also skim read the title and description like you did my argument? It doesn't follow that we need science to prove everything. It's a very silly and modern idea. If my argument actually lacked any proper facts behind it, you would be able to show it to be internally contradictory instead of simply saying it is faulty without demonstrating why it is faulty.
The experiment he first mentioned is completely void of basis for a proper proof of universals. Even though he mentioned that he just wants to talk and not debate, he doesn't give any support for the argument that universals don't exist. It seems to me like he just choose this topic solely because he thought he would definitely win in this debate.
I imagine i will win it if you don't comment on my argument to consciousness next round (which was my actual argument).
Conclusion
- half of Cons arguments consisted solely as personal attacks
- The other half of cons arguments were arguing against colours being universals, which i directly said i will not be arguing for them being universals in my own argument!
- We remain comment-less on my actual argument, which is that consciousness itself is a universal.
- Con in the end said a whole lot, without saying anything at all. Demonstrating he would make a great career politician.
Con
#4
Before we get things started:
After reading Pro's second argument, I wanted to bury my face in sand. He didn't understood a word I said and I will demonstrate this later. Pro posted his second argument within 2 hours after I posted mine, he didn't gave any time to my argument and result of that is his second argument.
vague definitions:Within my first round argument, I actually made an argument against using colors as a universal due to the fact I could get caught in the idea of it being an illusion of the mind or "not an entity of its own". Which leads me to believe you have actually just skim read my argument and come to the conclusion that I have just rehashed the same argument for colour but now for consciousness (which is not true).
This is the result of rushed arguments. The reason I explained from color argument was because it was easy to relate. After that I explained the same basis on 'square' and I even took a general universal 'x'. Pro fails to understand similarity between shape and color, if color is a result of human perception, then so is shape and everything we understand as well. The things I applied to prove color can also be applied to other things as well and my explanation for 'square' and 'red' are the same, my arguments are based on basis to judge and accuracy. His entire argument for consciousness is just downright dumb. I will explain that later.
I don't believe you need to know what Kylie Jenner is doing at this moment to know if all balls possess roundness. Your argument against "roundness" or geometrical arguments being universal due to the fact that complete symmetry doesn't seem to be observable in the real world, although good, is only a matter of time before humans can create a sphere with perfect symmetry, as we have created an object known as GP-B, which is two spherical balls that are 40 atoms from perfect roundness. These two balls are the exact same roundness and made of the exact same material. We are also capable of creating perfectly symmetrical images on a computer. What you may not realise is that a computer, just like we are, and spheres, is also made of atoms. This then shows that the atoms within the computer can attain perfect symmetry. There's little reason to believe we won't attain this with real-world objects soon either.
Reading the first line made me chuckle. You don't need to know who killed Hitler to know the roundness of a ball. I was talking solely on the PROPERTIES of ball. I even mentioned and took the specific 'x' and use the word PROPERTIES. Pro talks like an uneducated child. Do you know all the properties of roundness? Well if you do, CONGRATULATIONS!, for being the first person to do so. My argument was that we can define roundness on basis of what we know so far. Now I am gonna have to properly define this as well since you being inexperienced in science and philosophy. Before I do please read this argument carefully so I don't have to deal with your stupidity. Let's say we ask a child of 10 year to define what an electric generator is, the child having no knowledge on the subject tries to define generator to the BEST HE CAN, and so the child says " something that produces electricity". Now that is called VAGUE DEFINITON. Someone with knowledge might define this as "In electricity generation, a generator is a device that converts motive power into electric power for use in an external circuit. Sources of mechanical energy include steam turbines, gas turbines, water turbines, internal combustion engines, wind turbines and even hand cranks." Now this definition is more accurate than that of child's but the point is just like child we also do not possess knowledge that is beyond human comprehension and that knowledge might CHANGE definition of the generator. So we define generator to BEST WE CAN and this definition can be applied on every other thing as well so, please don't argue that "YOU HAVEN"T DONE THIS SAME THING TO A PARTICULAR UNIVERSAL." And your 'round' arguments makes me want to forfeit immediately. Attaining perfect symmetry is not the problem you half wit. Explaining 'roundness' is. And no we can not attain perfect symmetry. Just use a measurer more accurate than one who only measures up to atoms, zoom it even more up to infinite. Good luck doing that. Seriously, you should not have started this debate if you have no experience on the matter.
You are aware that you agreed to debate philosophy, no? Or did you also skim read the title and description like you did my argument? It doesn't follow that we need science to prove everything. It's a very silly and modern idea. If my argument actually lacked any proper facts behind it, you would be able to show it to be internally contradictory instead of simply saying it is faulty without demonstrating why it is faulty.
Just kill me. I seriously don't know what goes into the mind of this guy. Science provides us A SYSTEM TO PROVE THINGS. How do we know if something is true? just cause you said so?, we need facts, experiment , logical basis of reasoning and much more. Nothing is said to be true until you prove it to be true on basis of proving things. Even if your story or explanation has no logical faults. You need to prove things experimentally and explain them on all side effects, apply them on general ideas and give a proper basis of your theory that doesn't contradicts anything. But I guess hundreds of genius died while proving for SILLY IDEA. This is exactly why I said we can't know universals since there is no way to prove them without any contradictions. If humanity moved according to your logic we would probably be living in stone age.
I imagine i will win it if you don't comment on my argument to consciousness next round (which was my actual argument).
You just proved exactly what I said. You are just in this to increase your win rate. I proved things from general point of view and explained on basis for other things so you would be able to apply this on consciousness. But I guess I even have to do this as well. Do you even know what consciousness is? Most greatest scientists failed to explain what that is and you did? We do not talk on the things that have VAGUE DEFINITION or the things that we do not know and that is basically everything. You don't know that the thing you possess is the same for other humans as well, yes you might possess a single property common to them but is a single property enough to know that you are same? As far as I am concerned not even a million properties are enough.
And one more thing, if your next argument is dumb as this one is, I will forfeit .
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
wtf r u talking about? Dumb FK.
Bruh. I am not judging by what others think(others opinion). I am simply observing a thing and comparing it to others which you yourself consider as normal. We always judge others on basis and I have made that basis more wide and general by observing others. No I am not naive, because unlike you I have been asking myself after every line "am I missing something?". You consider yourself as true. That is shown by how you acted after my sec argument. You made me doubt myself by being so cocky, I started thinking am I missing something and that is how I am not naive. Well you may say that my comments show otherwise but I have to solidify myself and be confident, even in the moment of doubt. That is only way I can stand my ground. And I don't know why are you so bent on proving that I am insecure, probably cause that is only thing you could come up with. Just think again and actually compare why I said that you were naive and then compare why are you calling me naive.
if universal is there or particular . it would be according to whom ?
if your room wall is existing according to whom ?
who is the one ?
its "YOU"
material is defining another material who is 99..99 pct hollow some how even more
all is illusion
"bhrahm satya jagat mithya" _vedanta
Considering this is not your own opinion but following what others opinions are. Is it or is it not then naïve in your opinion? if it isn't naïve in your opinion, you're spiteful and hypocritical to consider it naïve of me, but not of yourself. if this isn't the case, then you're simply spiteful and malicious. In option two you're simply acting defeatist in life.
Not really. I don't judge everything by putting myself in that place, instead I mostly consider how a average person would feel if he had such stats. Being confident even though my feats don't support me would only label me as naive. If you are confident at this stage then you lose the value of confidence which probably comes after you have achieved some great feats. I would not have high self esteem if I haven't achieved something because that would be a delusion for myself. And I don't always judge someone by my insecurities, cause if I did I would be dumb, I try to judge them considering observations I made of people and not by my own bias.
The truth is, satan. That when one insults another, all you really point out is how you would feel if you were them, demonstrating your own insecurity. You're telling me i shouldn't have confidence if i possess a 30% winrate, demonstrating how you would view yourself if you had my winrate. All you really point out is your own insecurities and expectations of which I do not have. I will always be more confident and happy than you for as long as you have these judgements. All you point out is the fact you have lower self esteem than me, you're more fragile than me.
Maybe there's more going on than meets the eye.
I actually wanna know from where does this confidence comes from. You literally have 30 percent winrate and your arguments are dumb as FK.
lol this guy. It turns out in all of my philosophy discussions i have to offer a free epistemology class to rid them of their brain worms and scientism.
Although as jesus would say, its might not be very bright to cast my pearls before swine. I might pull out simply for the fact i shouldn't spread these ideas if i wish to publish them in the future. None of my true beliefs have been fully expressed on this site, at least to do with philosophy, i do believe consciousness is a universal though.
There isn't a person on the planet who has a greater understanding of metaethics than me. I can bridge the is-ought gap, i can show a mind independent morality to exist.
I would disagree. Although im planning on debating ossa on the matter in a months time.
Philosophy tries to make a big fancy deal about the simple idea of good vs eviland the nuances that rely on social+situational awareness and EQ.
You cannot form a rigid logical framework for ethics because a psychopath and/or nihilist have no way to end up intentionally moral (rather than accidentally) as the root of ethics is empathy and emotion based, not logically based.
what is the part you want me to address, sir? about philosophy picking straws of ethics?
Nice strawman of what I said.
The fact you think you cannot learn anything from philosophy demonstrates you have already given up. That's a loser mentality, its a shame almost everyone on the planet thinks the same.
Every debate includes philosophical thinking. All you really are telling me is that you are incapable of changing your mind in debates unless someone says it nicely to you. That's the difference though, rationalmadman, i will never give up or lose my open mind regardless of how the past of philosophy or the future of it appears. I have come to know true knowledge of the world can only be found through the study of ones own consciousness. Science is not objective, so it would be cool if people stopped appealing to science like its a religion.
Maybe I am transitioning from INTP/INFP to INTJ after all.
Philosophy is the art of worrying about the parts of ethics that are most nitpick-focused and irrelevant, generally speaking.
I would rather be the best doer at something or thinker at strategy or a subject that gets results than best philosophical thinker. That said, I do not think philosophical thinking is shown by debating, it is shown by more passive exploratory discussions, the best philosopher persuade, not argue.
I'm actually such a freak. This has to be one of my HARDEST arguments yet. I will be the greatest philosopher of the 21st century by the time im dead.
This comments section shows the decline in rational discourse from where we were 20 years ago. PRO does not want to have an argument. He specifically stated he wants a rational, logical discourse where two people hold a sort of socratic seminar.
But the people in the comments can't handle that. They want to use cheap parlor tricks and illogical nonsense to win a debate for points. No intellectual honesty. They care more about semantics and winning than about being smart or logical. That's a shame.
There's plenty of places to win with cheap parlor tricks on this site. But PRO, for once, brought forth a debate based on intellectual honesty and rational discourse, and that is too difficult for most people these days.
I'd take the debate, but the problem is I agree with PRO that there are universals. So I would only be practicing my polemics.
I believe universals exist independent of words. We wont be arguing words but noumena. At least i would.
The semantics favour your side.
then why don't you take the nominalism stance? that's what they think too.
This entire debate is semantical
“You're unironically the biggest sophist on the site, you use any method available to win."
Thanks.
You're just playing word games, that would obviously be a strawman argument. Fantasies cannot be proven to exist in reality. When we talk of universals existing we are obviously not asking if they exist in our imagination. We already know they do if they don't exist in reality.
You're unironically the biggest sophist on the site, you use any method available to win. Judging by any of your debates on china, its obvious you're the one unwilling to change your mind due to cultural indoctrination.
"Just don't be a sophist", a coated way of saying "My topic probably does not stand upon scrutiny, but I don't wanna lose; neither do I want to put any effort in changing that".
That is totally vague :) like does an imagined fantasy exist as a fantasy? If yes, Pro is tautologically correct.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at. The debate on the existence of universals is an extremely robust philosophical discipline going back thousands of years. There's nothing "vague" about what existence means. When i say existence, i mean things which exist in reality itself not things solely existing in the mind, such as the colour red. I can admit some universals are illusions, not all of them.
sophistry doesn't mean being vague it means twisting meanings and angles around so it appears all things support your case.
this is just tautological and lexical gymnastics with what 'exists' means.
They can choose to argue for whatever they want...... I'm simply giving them recommendations, i don't know what other arguments there is against the existence of universals.
Where is the sophistry, if i may ask? what about my debate is vague at all?
I think you are the one resorting to sophistry there and that Con has no choice but to do the same which is why that rule is stupid in this debate.
I'm unsure of what you mean! If you think universals are simply created through the usage of language and do not exist in reality, that would be called nominalism, which is one of the classes I said you can choose to debate/rebut my position.
It's pretty tautologous if people admit ideas in any way exist.